Talk:Commander Shepard
Shepard's Name "has the same name as the Stargate Atlantis1 character of the same name" is that even a proper sentence? :Just wanted to point out too, since someone else decided to post this tidbit on the page recently. John Shepard does, in fact, NOT share a name with a character from Stargate Atlantis. He has a similar name. The character from SG:A is named John Sheppard. Two P's. So please, no more of this "they have the same name" nonsense. SpartHawg948 21:07, November 16, 2009 (UTC) Age I put "probably" 29 because we don't know Commander Shepard's birthday or the month in which Mass Effect begins. He could technically be thirty. :Or she, don't forget. : ) I suppose FTL and mass relay travel makes Earth dates sort of obsolete, but - Damn, my curiosity got the better of me... let's see. During Mass Effect, it's Armistice Day (Ash mentions that it's unlucky for them to be fighting on Feros because of the anniversary, and Terra Firma is having their little flag waving protest to mark it). Taking a look at my copy of Revelation, the initial attack on Shanxi coincided with Grissom going to meet the graduating class from the Arcturus Academy. Given the Alliance's adherence to tradition, they probably have their recruits graduate according to the schedule of the older military academies back on Earth. West Point graduates in May, Sandhurst in September. As Bioware is over the Atlantic they'd likely take West Point's schedule. The First Contact War lasted two months, so Armistice Day would likely be some time in... July or September. --All speculation of course, but still, fun to try and work it out. : ) -- Tullis 13:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC) :Shepard's 30th birthday wouldn't happen until 2184. Shepard could still be 28, though, especially if this "4.11.2154" business refers to November 4th. ShepardWhyThisJubilee 22:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC) :It's also possible that the date of Armistice Day is still carried over from the Great War (as in WWI) in much the same way that it's become a general remembrance of war veterans whenever they fought. As for when he graduated, it's impossible to say since the Arcturus Academy could be influenced by any of the older academies or simply do its own thing. As mentioned in the Shep's Birthday section, his date of birth would appear to be (deliberately?) ambiguous... --vom 10:53, November 16, 2009 (UTC) First Human Spectre? Commander Shepard is the first human given the opportunity to join the Spectres actually,you later find out in the stroy that Cpt. Anderson also had an opportunity to join them...so it should be change to something like "the first human to actually join the spectres",not just the opportunity Rank Where'd the LTC rank come from? Granted, Lieutenant Commanders are generally just called Commander, but I never saw any evidence that Shepard was a Lt. Commander and not a full Commander. Didn't edit it in case there's something I missed-just wanted to point that out. :In the Codex entry about the Prothean Beacon after Eden Prime, the sentence states that it affected 'Lt. Commander Shepard'. And I think the first Journal entry that gives you some background says you are Lt. Commander Shepard, XO aboard the Normandy. --Tullis 08:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Image Issues So there have been some issues with images on this page. Someone keeps putting a picture up and myself and one other editor keep removing it. I can't speak for anyone else, but it's my belief that since Commander Shepard's gender is not set in stone, we either need images of the default male AND female Shepard, or no pictures at all. SpartHawg948 19:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Images of Shepard As I mention in the Talk:Screenshots page, I feel that we should avoid having specific images of Shepard where possible. There is no canon for Shepard being male or female, and the commander's appearance and backstory are uniquely customised for each player - having a 'default' Shepard for players to jump right in doesn't change that. That's why I've removed the image from this page. --Tullis 19:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC) : I couldn't agree more! SpartHawg948 19:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC) "Sorry about that, at first I thought it was not updated properly. Still I am not agreeing with your comment on ‘default’ Shepard. After all it is the standard Shepard for this game and Mass Effect 2."- Snfonseka :We don't know that this is the Shepard for Mass Effect 2. And this is not the 'standard' Shepard either, just a representative one. --Tullis 20:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC) ::And for that matter this Shepard is only the "current" standard. The origional "standard Shepard" (the one pictured in the Wiki logo on the top left of the page) looked a good deal different from the current "standard". SpartHawg948 20:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC) :::Speaking of, I'd really like to get that changed. Maybe something like the Mass Relay image or the Earth shot from the opening screen, or even that 'uncharted worlds' picture with the Mass Effect logo on. Volunteers? --Tullis 21:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Yea. I agree with Tullis. That logo should be change to something new. - Snfonseka I disagree about the "no pictures" policy. The default male Shepard is, after all, on the cover of the box! And in all the official screenshots that have Shepard in them. Thus, a picture of the default male and female Shepards is a good idea, IMO. I have a good picture of the default male—I'll see if I can get one of the female. As long as the caption for the image says that it is the default appearance of Shepard rather than the only appearance of him/her, that should be more than adequate. RobertM525 18:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC) :I would still prefer not to have a picture at all rather than have to have a long caption explaining this. --Tullis 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC) ::The caption isn't long. I've just added it. I do not understand what would be objectionable about it. Especially since the article takes a considerable amount of time explaining the fact that Shepard's appearance can be changed. And, look, I don't use the default Shepard, either. I don't like what he looks like. But that's still the Shepard that's depicted by Bioware as what the player character looks like in the game. You can change it, but that's the semi-canon appearance of Shepard. Thus, it's worth having in the article. RobertM525 18:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Reopening this discussion I know this was discussed a while back, but given the recent overhauls and looking at those images, I'd like to go over it again. It seems strange to have a wiki-wide policy of not having images of Shepard, constantly emphasise that we don't have canon Shepards or a canon critical path for good reasons laid out in the Style Guide, and then stick two pictures of Shepard on this page when we could use the N7 logo. I keep coming back to the statement above: "that's still the Shepard that's depicted by Bioware as what the player character looks like in the game. You can change it, but that's the semi-canon appearance of Shepard." But there is no "canon version" of Shepard, semi or otherwise. Just a representative one for promo material. Shepard can look like anyone the player wishes, and be of either gender and any ethnicity. Otherwise what's the point of having character creation in the first place? Having default images says to me: "sure, you can mess around with Shepard as much as you want, but your choices don't matter, here's what the commander REALLY looks like." If we're going to have a wiki-wide policy and come down hard on images of Shepard, we need to be consistent. On the other hand. We do have to put something here, and it will look strange if this is the one instance where we don't have an image of a person for their character page, though Shepard is certainly a special case. Shepard's the main character; we should make the effort to find an image that works. I'd love to hear people's opinion on this. One last thing (I promise). If we do decide to keep the images of the default Shepards, I propose we get two new shots to match our shiny new character pages; I think we can improve on these. : ) --Tullis 01:52, January 18, 2010 (UTC) :Well it seems to me that we have three choices... Accept the usage of the semi-canonical Shepard from the promos (aka the "default" Mark Meer male Shepard); if this isn't acceptable b/c it automatically assumes the Commander's gender and ethnicity and whatnot, continue to use the male and female defaults here; or remove the Shepard images altogether and use a placeholder (like the N7 logo). My personal preference would be to use the promo (Mark Meer) Shepard, as this is the face most commonly associated with Shepard b/c it's the Shepard depicted on TV, the cover of the game, magazines, etc. That's my take on it, but as has been demonstrated many times over now, I'm pretty willing to accept the consensus and go with the flow on this one. SpartHawg948 02:11, January 18, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, but we can't just have the Mark Meer Shepard, we'd have to have the Jennifer Hale Shepard as well. Otherwise that kind of defeats the purpose of not referring to Shepard by gender and not using any images, 'cause just having his picture says "Shepard is male and looks like this". Also, if Mass Effect allows for character customisation, and we at MEWiki strive for as much accuracy as possible, then it's kind of inaccurate to give Shepard one concrete image. ::If it's too much of a pain we may as well just stick to the images we have. I was just curious as to what people thought. --Tullis 02:19, January 18, 2010 (UTC) :I don't think we need to go too overboard with the no Shepard images policy. I think images of the defaults on this page is fine, and I'd go as far as saying images of the default Shepard are perfectly fine on non-story pages like Armor and Weapons, just as long as he/she's not in a story situation. I don't think that will take away from people's own story experiences, certainly no more than the box-art or marketing would. We don't have to refer to it as 'canon', 'semi canon' or anything, just 'default'. :One option for this page would be to simply swap the positions of the N7 image and the default faces, since planting the faces under 'Profile Reconstruction' pretty clearly removes them from any real story context, if you're really worried about that. JakePT 02:20, January 18, 2010 (UTC) ::But if it's inaccurate to give Shepard one concrete image, how is it any less inaccurate to give Shepard just two concrete images? (playing Devil's Advocate here) SpartHawg948 02:21, January 18, 2010 (UTC) :::SpartHawg: it's less inaccurate because it says that Shepard can at least be both male and female and that the commander's appearance is malleable (she says, apparently playing stupid advocate here :) ). :::JakePT: we're looking at recapturing the armour images and we use the squaddies for weapon pictures, but I actually like that idea, especially if we took fresh shots from the actual customisation screens. That way we get the images but also a sense that they're malleable. (And shiny new pictures.) Another concern I had was that, with the new character infobox, it looks clumsy to have the "these are default images" caption; that could be easily fixed if we have them in the body of the article. :::I dunno. Maybe I'm nitpicking but I feel strongly about people feeling their choices are "wrong" because they're not canon according to some mystical decision they have no say in. I just want to give the sense that we accommodate everyone, and their Shepards. I think that's worth the effort. --Tullis 02:28, January 18, 2010 (UTC) ::I don't think we'd be making people feel their choices were "wrong", certainly no more so than BioWare itself does by picking one image for Shepard to use in all their marketing, videos, dev diaries, commercials, print ads and interviews, etc... There's no way we can acoomodate everybody, however nice that may be, so I think we just need to go with the most practical/practicable solution. SpartHawg948 02:33, January 18, 2010 (UTC) :::All good points. And if that means leaving it as is, that's OK. --Tullis 02:44, January 18, 2010 (UTC) I totally get the not wanting to make people feel like their Shepard is 'wrong', but I do feel we have some freedom to use the default Shepard before that becomes a problem. I do think though that with the new character box we'd be better off with the N7 image in it, and having the default faces under the Profile Reconstruction section, with subtitles. So my position is: Move default faces to Profile Reconstruction, use Shepard images in non-story contexts (armor, weapons etc. which may be unavoidable in ME2) and completely avoid using images/gender in story articles. JakePT 03:40, January 18, 2010 (UTC) :Yeah, I forgot to address the 'N7 in infobox, default pictures in profile reconstruction area' idea. It's a pretty good idea. I'm trying to think of reasons to oppose it and I'm coming up with... nada. :) SpartHawg948 03:47, January 18, 2010 (UTC) ::You'll make someone a superb "no-man" one day, SpartHawg. : ) ::That seems like a good solution to me. I guess I'm overreacting on this, it's just something I feel strongly about and, since we're spiffing up the pages right now it seemed like a good time to address it again. If we want to do this, could someone look at getting the profile reconstruction shots, while I'll see about finding a nice N7 pic and we'll see how it looks. For all we know it might end up looking better the way it is now, and render all my blathering entirely moot. : ) --Tullis 04:09, January 18, 2010 (UTC) :No-man... I like that! For now I prefer to think of myself playing "bad cop" to your "good cop", administratively speaking (would that make DRY the plainclothes detective?) :P SpartHawg948 04:45, January 18, 2010 (UTC) ::Nah, DRY is more like our Lucius Fox. : ) --Tullis 04:56, January 18, 2010 (UTC) Shouldn't we change this? I think since Mass Effect has it's own story we should make this article about the default main character: Commander John Shepard, he is on the cover of the game and is (as previously mentioned) the default leading character. Jon-117 03:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC) :The hero of Mass Effect is Commander Shepard. Whether Shepard is male or female, what Shepard looks like and how Shepard acts is up to the individual player. Default is not the same as canon. Locking Shepard or the story down to an absolute canon defeats the object of having so much player choice in-game in the first place. And, as everyone's Shepard is different, saying the main character is John Shepard will be inaccurate for the vast majority of players. If nothing else, a wiki should be as accurate as possible. That's why the guideline for this wiki is to write Shepard as gender-neutral. --Tullis 05:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC) :So what if a book comes out based on the game and John Shepard is the main character, what happens then? Jon-117 00:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC) :: Drew Karpyshyn says: "I’ve done my best to manage expectations and make sure everyone understands that the adventures of Commander Shepard will NEVER be in one of my novels… YOU get to choose Shepard’s course in the game – that’s YOUR story. The novels are meant to expand and broaden the Mass Effect universe by telling a different story, so they will never simply recount events in the game." He's currently the only person who's writing ME novels. -- D Karpyshyn blog, August 18 2008. --Tullis 00:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Title of the article. Is it really appropriate that the title of this article be "Commander Shepard"? Article titles typically use only a person's actual name, and don't include military ranks. I think that the title should be changed to just "Shepard". Thoughts? --Randy1012 09:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC) :'Shepard' redirects here already. Interesting question. I don't know - Shepard is referred to both by military rank and surname throughout the game. Being a commander seems to be quite a large part of Shepard's identity, I wouldn't say it was inappropriate to use that rank. Besides Shepard's in a unique position so far as first names are concerned. : ) ::True, people use the term "Commander" to occasionally identify Shepard, but it's not his name. The article for Anderson isn't titled "Captain David Anderson," for example. --Randy1012 14:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC) :I guess if Shepard ever gets promoted, this article should switch to just 'Shepard' for accuracy, but I don't have a problem with it being 'Commander Shepard'. I could be in the minority though. Hmm. What do others think? --Tullis 13:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC) ::It's really not a huge deal (this is a video game wiki, after all), but my main reasoning for the question is just that: accuracy. Including a character's military rank isn't appropriate. It's the same with, for example, Admiral Hackett--his name is Steven, so his article title should simply be "Steven Hackett." --Randy1012 14:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC) :::Actually, then it becomes a problem with the search bar. Most players only know him as 'Admiral Hackett', so if we switch it to 'Steven Hackett' they won't find the article if they search for him as 'Admiral Hackett' unless we create a redirect, which seems unnecessary. Although, I suppose we do have Donnel Udina as an article, and he's only named on the ME 'movie poster'. : ) What do other users think? Do we want to create redirects and give people their full names, or are we happy to use rank in the case of characters whose first names are never or very rarely used? --Tullis 15:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC) ::::You beat me to it :)... ::::The article naming should be according to the in-game references. I did not know (or more acuratly, didn't bother to know) that Hackett first name is Steven. If I were to search for that article, I would search for "Admiral Hackett" and not "Steven Hackett". There is also "The Asari Consort" and "Commander Rentola", and various others. :::::Fair enough, though I think that "Admiral Hackett" should redirect to "Steven Hackett," as Tullis mentioned. "The Asari Consort" redirects to Sha'ira, as it should. "Commander Rentola" should also just redirect to "Rentola," as that is the character's name (well, not including all the other parts that make up salarian names). --Randy1012 00:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC) ::::::Well, if we're gonna do this thing -- volunteers to create the Rannadril Ghan Swa Fulsoom Karaten Narr Eadi Bel Anoleis page? Anyone? : ) --Tullis 00:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC) ::::To do a standardization of the article names, we could do something like: "Shepard, Commander" or "Hackett, Steven (Admiral)", or any other naming convention along those lines. Then we could reference the current names to the new pages. --silverstrike 15:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC) :::::To Randy1012 re: the General Williams article: No, I don't like the way this looks. Why on earth do 'Williams (General)' when we know exactly whom 'General Williams' refers to? Also, it creates unnecessary complication for new editors who may not know this convention. Changing. :::::I genuinely don't understand why you consider it 'inappropriate' to refer to military personnel by their rank. Coming from a military family, the opposite is usually true. --Tullis 13:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC) ::::::I come from a military family myself, but I was thinking more about how an entry in a real encyclopedia would be presented. If you turned to a page about, I don't know, Douglas MacArthur, it would be titled "Douglas MacArthur," not "General MacArthur" or "General Douglas MacArthur." Adding "General" in parentheses after "Williams" was only to differentiate him from any other Williams in the ME wiki (including Ashley and anyone else that might get added in the future). Not to mention that it screws up the categories--they're supposed to list articles in alphabetical order, but instead of going by the characters' names, their ranks are used instead. But, like I said on the General Williams discussion page, if that's the format you've all chosen to use here, who am I to argue? I'm just glad I was at least able to bring up some interesting discussion about the subject. :-) --Randy1012 18:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC) ::::::I didn't moved the article - that was just an idea I had following Randy's complaints... I also think that the current naming is fine - you always refer to the character title and rank and not the full name (even in real life). ::::::Military names and rank should be written as: "rank name name", or non military: "Dr. something someone", "Asari Consort". --silverstrike 14:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC) :::::::I apologise, that comment was actually not directed to you. Clarified. But then are we looking at articles for 'Gunnery Chief Ashley Williams' when we know her as 'Ashley Williams'? It seems unnecessarily complicated. Liara would be fine, as she's often referred to as 'Dr. T'Soni'. Maybe there should be an exception for squadmates. --Tullis 14:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) ::::::::I think that character names should be written as they are in-game. That is what visitors will look for - we could add at the top of the article the "correct" reference (Gunnery Chief Ashley Williams) to be accurate, but we should leave the article names as they are. --silverstrike 14:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC) ::::::::There are also ranks and titles for characters that are not mentioned, for example: does Liara T'Soni's title should be "Asari Scientist Liara T'soni"? or should Tali be referenced as "Quarian Mechanist Tali'Zorah nar Rayya"?, and so on... --silverstrike 14:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) :::::::::They are never, ever referred to as such in-game, and it makes no difference to their character. 'Turian Agent' is a class, not a rank. So no. The first paragraph of each squadmate's article says what class they are anyway. : ) :::::::::But yeah, I'll add the character's rank to the first line of their pages (for Kaidan and Ashley, anyway) as it is on Liara's page. The aliens don't have ranks, except in Liara's case, and it's already established on her page as mentioned. --Tullis 15:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC) :::::::::EDIT: (Whoops! Ash's is already done. I'll fix Kaidan's. : ) ) --Tullis 15:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Mass Effect 2 As of now anything seen or speculated for the teaser trailer (which often have little connection to the plot of the game it is for) is just that... speculation. At this time it does not belong on this page as it is not a fact. So for those posting that information... please do not. Zerodark9 22:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC) :I suppose I should leave the Mass Effect 2 heading off this page, then, as people keep deleting it along with the speculation. :) --Tullis 22:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC) I just watched the video and in the end it showed Shepard dying in first Normandy how can this be possible if he flies in another Normandy the same video and the game takes place after this?OmagaSpruz 16:30, November 24, 2009 (UTC) :Ummm... dream, nightmare, hallucination, simulation, maybe the fact that this could be only one of a number of possible outcomes, maybe it's an elaborate ruse to get the enemy to believe he's dead for whatever reason, could be content that doesn't even make it into the game (remember the miners on Caleston? That one even made it into the commercials! Or how about pulling a gun on the salarian bartender of Flux and then talking to the asari upstairs?). There are so many possible answers to that question. Best to just wait till it comes out and find out for sure. SpartHawg948 20:35, November 23, 2009 (UTC) :Also, please sign your comments from now on. This can be done by pressing the tilde key (this ~) 4 times at the end of your post. SpartHawg948 20:36, November 23, 2009 (UTC) Sheps Birthday Since I can't be bothered checking the ME codex, is there an in-game date for Sheps birthday? The only one I can recall seeing is the date in the ME2 teaser trailer which says the 4th of November (4.11.2154). Yes, I know Americans are going to scream 'but thats the 11th of April!' but since we're talking about a unified Earth military, it's pretty safe to assume they would have adopted the international date system which is day/month/year. -- 03:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC) :It confused me too (I hate that backwards dating). I've reverted it back -- it's also on the timeline as being April 11th -- but for simplicity's sake I'll put it on Shepard's page in numerical form so people can interpret it as they want. :) --Tullis 12:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC) :: Actually If they were using the international standard, dates would be in the format of YYYY-MM-DD. Molon 17:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC) :::Cause you know us Americans, we put our hamburger patties in the toaster and our beds in the living room.--Vaile 22:26, December 16, 2009 (UTC) Today is 01-JUL-09 no confusion there, how I always write my date:/ On the biotics talk page, there's a timeline (that apparently comes from the dev team's timeline doc) of when Kaidan and (biotic) Shepard had various biotic things happen to them (when Shepard was detected as a biotic, &c.) – but Kaidan's age at the time of each event seems like it should be one more: 2168 - Shepard, 14 years old, received secondary exposure to element zero. Permanent biotic inclination manifests. 2169 - Kaidan, 17 years old, accidentally kills trainer after being provoked. Diplomatic incident forces closure of BAaT training. Kaidan refuses further training. This seems to support Kaidan's birthday being in, like, December or something (so that calendar year - his birth year = his age for only a few days each year), and Shepard's being earlier in the year (since s/he *is* the "expected" age in each of those calendar years, at least according to that document, and if Shepard was born in April this has a much higher probability of working out than if s/he was born in November), making Kaidan somewhat less than three whole years older than Shepard. Do we know when Kaidan's birthday is – or anyone else's besides Shepard's (such as it is), for that matter? For one thing, we'd know what date convention they were using if some character turned out to be born on, say, the 20th of a month… ShepardWhyThisJubilee 06:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC) :We have an exact date for Ashley's birthday, but that's about the only one we have. --Tullis 22:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC) To revisit this again, has anybody figured out a definitive answer as to whether it's the 4th of November or the 11th of April - or if it is indeed deliberately ambiguous? If it's unknown, maybe a note could be added to that effect. --vom 09:46, November 13, 2009 (UTC) :We don't have a definite answer, we just have the definitive date that was given, so we're leaving it at that. --Tullis 15:18, November 13, 2009 (UTC) ::Thanks, at least I know now! Anybody fancy adding a footnote to that effect? I'd volunteer, but my Wiki code is so rusty that I'd probably do something nasty to the page if I attempted it myself... --vom 21:21, November 13, 2009 (UTC) :::I'm not... sure what we can add as a footnote. That's the date we were given. We left it in the format that was in the teaser to try and avoid dispute. Adding footnotes saying is could be April or November seems a little redundant. : ) --Tullis 21:28, November 13, 2009 (UTC) ::::How about "we don't know what format this is in"? :D I think a possible solution is to make it link to this discussion so anybody else who comes along understands that the date is rather indeterminate... --vom 10:57, November 16, 2009 (UTC) Considering the in game dating convention used on save files is DD/MM/YYYY, isn't it safe to assume that the same convention would be used for all in game dates? Won't change it myself, but if everyone agrees, then be my guest. --Zadok0 00:56, January 7, 2010 (UTC) :I was just thinking that myself. I'd go with the save file notation. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 05:45, January 8, 2010 (UTC) About Shepard being dead http://blogs.ign.com/BW_MassEffect/2009/04/30/119240/ A Bioware dev said he "better not be dead" saracasticly. I take it as he meant he isn't dead. Fedarated AK74-u 15:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Cloned Is it possoble that if shepard were to die in M E 2 they could clone shepard at the begining of M E 3. :Anything's possible. Personally, though, I only care about the second right now. If it has the replay value they say it's going to have, then I'll be just fine playing it over and over and over again, to hold me over. lol. --Effectofthemassvariety 01:29, November 30, 2009 (UTC) My guess is that you either play as Sheperd in the third game, or a totally new character. Resemblance Just want to make one point clear. In the past few days I have seen multiple instances of people inserting their opinions that a character resembles someone else (and actor, a character in another game, etc) as trivia. This is not trivia, it is personal opinion. For example, other than the fact that they both have short hair, I see no resemblance between Commander Shepherd and John Forge of Halo Wars, as their facial structures are substantially different. Please remember that these are factual articles. Personal opinions do not belong. Put them on your personal pages. SpartHawg948 11:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Mass Effect 2 Class If you were a soldier in Mass Effect, will you have to make a different Shepard in ME2 or will you be able to change your class?--TheEverAlertAndSilentStep 22:52, November 13, 2009 (UTC) :Pretty sure you'll be able to change your class if you so choose. SpartHawg948 02:03, November 14, 2009 (UTC) :Developers have said you will have to option to change your class, since things are being changed up quite a bit and you may not want to stick with the same class. JakePT 02:52, November 14, 2009 (UTC) ::yep yep, the new vanguard abilities are really making me re-think my infiltrator.--Xaero Dumort 21:33, November 24, 2009 (UTC) :::Yeah! The Adept abilities are freaking awesome! I'm definately thinking about changing from soldier to that! Also, on a side note: You also have the choice of changing your physical appearance as well. I definately got sick of that huge scar across my Shepard's face by the end. lol. --Effectofthemassvariety 01:34, November 30, 2009 (UTC) "Asleep" comment I think some people may be taking the asleep comment a little too literally, at least at the moment, knowing what we know. My take on it was that the use of the word "asleep" by the Illusive Man was along the lines of the phrase "asleep at the wheel", as often times asleep will be used in this context on it's own w/out the rest of the saying. Of course, I could be wrong on that, but that is my take on it at this time. SpartHawg948 20:50, November 15, 2009 (UTC) :Well my interest was tweaked in the Illusive Man video in which Shepard asks the Illusive Man, "What are the Reapers doing that made you bring me back?" http://kotaku.com/5404715/mass-effect-2s-elusive-man-is--martin-sheen (about halfway through the trailer).Which leads me to believe the reason for implants and things like that and all the "I thought you were dead." comments is because... maybe he was? Who knows what kind of cloning technology may exist? That one is more out there, but at the least he was probably in a coma and they kept trying to revive him after picking him up after the SR-1 is destroyed.--Xaero Dumort 04:43, November 16, 2009 (UTC) ::I will admit, that is certainly an intriguing theory. I guess we'll just have to see how it all plays out. :) SpartHawg948 04:46, November 16, 2009 (UTC) :::So should that mean he is not a human anymore, a cyborg like Saren? I think he have been in a very hard coma severly damaged. What about his crew?OmagaSpruz 18:47, November 23, 2009 (UTC) ::::Yeah like Saren, but probably cyborg pre-Reaper enhanced level. That's my theory behind why the more renegade he gets the more apparent his enhancements are. Pretty sure in the one picture his eyes are glowing red the way that Saren's glowed blue. We are not really sure of the fate of members of the crew like Chakwas, Pressly and Joker.--Xaero Dumort 19:34, November 23, 2009 (UTC) :::::I just got the idea that maybe the picture where eyes are glowing are face implant, but it is still possible most of him is cyborg type also. I also noticed that his N7 armor or onyx was it, have changed or am i wrong? OmagaSpruz 16:39, November 24, 2009 (UTC) ::::It's still N7, I think it is just a aesthetic change for the better graphics.--Xaero Dumort 21:31, November 24, 2009 (UTC) :::::I thought that "glowing eyes" picture was just something they did for halloween. You know, for fun? Maybe I'm wrong. Effectofthemassvariety 02:55, December 8, 2009 (UTC) Shepards Connection with Legion I have a theory that perhaps Shepard as we know him was killed when the Normandy was destroyed. Cerberus recovered the body and attempted to remake him (same personality, same memories, better physically) and during their first attempt they attempted to fuse those traits with a geth so as to make him obedient, but something went wrong and thus Legion was born. Teir second attempt was more successful and yields the Shepard we play as in Mass Effect 2. :This is pretty much impossible, since even in the interviews with Mass Effect 2 team members, they have stated that Legion is the natural evolution of the geth, and that same geth have different beliefs than others (fractured groups). So... no. This wouldn't sound plausible or even logical to begin with. But, concerning the information we have, we can safely place that file within the "impossible" category. HaierPhilips 07:01, November 17, 2009 (UTC) :On the reaper talk page someone suggested that legion is Sovereign itself, i remembered Virmire. Sovereign Mentioned "We are Legion", So the connection is Sovereign hunting down Shepard by the name of Legion. OmagaSpruz 16:44, November 24, 2009 (UTC) Legion could be a peice of sovereign...but remember sovereign was destroyed at the end of mass effect so wouldnt he just have given up wanting to hunt Shepard thats if he was controlled by sovereign...but my theory is that this is a geth that is very obsessive of Commander Shepard as most people are.... --Rogue of fe 19:28, November 24, 2009 (UTC) :Well, again, Legion could be Sovereign itself, or a piece of Sovereign, if it weren't for the fact that Legion has already been stated to be a geth who "evolved". The fact that Sovereign stated "We are Legion" (which is of course a Biblical reference used to suggest the fact that there are a great many Reapers) and that this geth is also named Legion is very interesting, but I highly doubt that the connection runs as deep as is being suggested here. Again, it has already been explicitly stated that Legion is a geth. An evolved geth, but a geth nonetheless. Not a Cerberus created Shepard MK II, and not a piece of Sovereign. A geth. SpartHawg948 20:55, November 24, 2009 (UTC) ::Why not partially combine the two ideas? Maybe this geth evolved because of exposure to Sovereign and Reaper ideals?--Xaero Dumort 21:32, November 24, 2009 (UTC) :::Now that is certainly a possibility. I mean, the Reapers don't care for individualism in others (as evidenced by indoctrination), but I suppose they are, themselves, individuals, and at least as far as could be demonstrated by one Reaper all by itself, individualistic, so I suppose that could be possible. Certainly more so than Legion being the result of a failed Cerberus attempt to make a new Shepard (6 million dollar man style) or being Sovereign re-incarnated or a hunk of Sovereign or whatever! :P SpartHawg948 21:45, November 24, 2009 (UTC) Captain Shepard Is Shepard promoted to a rank of captain? -- Snfonseka 14:14, December 3, 2009 (UTC) :Not based upon anything I've seen yet, no. Bear in mind also that the commander of a ship, regardless of rank, is referred to as captain aboard their vessel, regardless of the actual rank they hold. So technically, Shepard has been a captain for quite a while now. SpartHawg948 21:00, December 3, 2009 (UTC) ::Well, they his crewman don't refer to him as Captain in the game because it would be confusing if he was refered to as both Captain and Commander. In the Tali video, one of the quarians does him Captain Shepard, but that's because it really is the proper way to refer to the CO of a ship, and the quarians wouldn't ignore that. Does that make sense? Plus, he's not technically part of the Alliance military, so they wouldn't promote him, would they? I don't know. Then again, maybe he will be promoted. We'll have to see. Effectofthemassvariety 03:06, December 8, 2009 (UTC) ::::I would assume that to a quarian, culturally, if you're in charge of a ship you're considered a captain. Or, it could also have evolved into a polite way to refer to someone who has a ship and is clearly in command, the equivalent of saying "sir" or "my lord". Be interesting to see in ME2. --Tullis 15:53, December 8, 2009 (UTC) :::Pretty sure he still is part of the Alliance military. The comments made throughout ME by Admirals Hackett and Mikhailovich certainly bear this out. Basically, the way I understood it both from their comments and the general gameplay, Shepard (and the Normandy) are both Alliance on loan to the Citadel. It wouldn't make sense to let someone who isn't in the Alliance military have command of one of the most advanced ships in the Alliance navy, they would have given the ship a captain who had ultimate control of the vessel. And if Shepard being a Spectre meant he was no longer Alliance military, why did Anderson have to step down to let Shepard assume command. No, I'm fairly certain Shepard is still in the Alliance military, at least for all of Mass Effect, and it would seem for at least part of ME2, unless everyone in the galaxy decided all at once to refer to Shepard as Commander Shepard (commander being his Alliance military rank, after all) for no good reason. SpartHawg948 03:40, December 8, 2009 (UTC) :::In fact, the article even mentions (in the trivia section) that Shepard is still Alliance military. From what has been shown, it would seem that military members who become Spectres are basically in the same position as UN Peacekeepers. They are still ultimately members of their own military services, but they are basically on special assignment to a larger, multi-national group, serving under the command of that group and it's officials for the duration. SpartHawg948 03:43, December 8, 2009 (UTC) ::::Maybe. It's odd that Anderson says he's not part of the Alliance military anymore, yet Hackett states otherwise. And you can also tell Mikhailovich to basically screw off when he comes to inspect your ship, so... I don't know. It is true that he is referred to as Captain Shepard in the Tali trailer, so it could be that the quarians are just calling him that because he is the CO, or because he actually has been promoted. Effectofthemassvariety 04:51, December 8, 2009 (UTC) :::::But again, why would everyone call Shepard Commander if Shepard no longer held military rank? Also, in EVERY military on Earth, which the novels clearly state the Alliance military is based strongly off of (especially the USMC, it would seem), if a Captain says one thing and an Admiral says another, 99% of the time the Admiral is right! Captains (the naval version at least) are upper-level middle management (rank-wise) whereas full Admirals are the leadership. So I'd be much more inclined to take Admiral Hackett at face value. He's got much more experience than Anderson. And again, to re-iterate the main point, since I kind of got off topic. Everyone (including the Citadel Council, Shepard's Spectre bosses) refer to Shepard by his Systems Alliance military rank. I can't think of any better evidence than that. SpartHawg948 05:12, December 8, 2009 (UTC) ::::::You make a good point. I was only wondering why the writers would put two contradicting statements in. I think you're right about him being part of the Military still. So the main question hasn't been answered. Is there evidence that he/she has been promoted, other than the Tali video? None that I know. Is it possible? Yes. Is it possible the quarians only referred to Shepard as Captain because he is the CO of the Normandy? Yes. Am I right in saying that? Effectofthemassvariety 06:39, December 8, 2009 (UTC) :::::::Indeed! SpartHawg948 08:01, December 8, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Very good then. :) Effectofthemassvariety 05:47, December 9, 2009 (UTC) Since Shpeard is a Marine, wouldn't he be promoted to Major rather than Captain? --LBCCCP 06:30, December 12, 2009 (UTC) :I'm pretty sure the Alliance uses the ranking system of the Navy. Shepard is technically a lt. Commander, so his next promotion would just be plain ol' Commander.--Matt 2108 06:38, December 12, 2009 (UTC) :That is an excellent point that I had completely overlooked! You refer to him so often as Commander that you forget that is actual rank is Lt Commander (the L in Lt also gets capitalized) so yeah, if he were to be promoted Commander would be the next stop. Lends a little more weight to my theory that Captain is used in the context of captain of a ship, not Captain as in the rank. SpartHawg948 06:48, December 12, 2009 (UTC) I've got a good theory on whether or not Shepard is promoted or not. If he was "killed in action" as some sources say he was, then traditionally, he would be given a promotion of two ranks by the Alliance Military. And i believe that two promotions would put him at the rank of Captain. :What do you mean traditionally, he would be promoted two ranks? Not calling you wrong or anything, but I'm in the military and have never heard of any such tradition. SpartHawg948 00:44, December 22, 2009 (UTC) :I know it's a tradition for enlisted soldiers, probably officers as well, but they only promote you by one rank. So he would still be Commander. ::Again though, where is this supposed "tradition" from? I am an enlisted soldier. I knew plenty of enlisted soldiers from several nations who were killed in action and have never heard of any such thing. Once again, I asked what tradition is being referred to (ie where/to whom is it tradition)... saying "I know it's a tradition" isn't an answer. SpartHawg948 20:33, December 26, 2009 (UTC) :::A simple google search for posthumous promotions is all that is needed. Frankly, I honestly find it difficult to believe you have not heard of this. It is a very common practice in the U.S. military, as with other nations. Anyone that's familiar with Pat Tillman's unfortunate story will know he received a posthumous promotion to Corporal. Some other real-life examples: :::http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/07/ap_illinois_soldier_promoted_071009/ :::http://www.ktvz.com/Global/story.asp?S=7613500 :::http://www.militarycity.com/valor/263007.html (Page on Pat Tillman and his accomplishments, including a posthumous promotion in rank. An Army spokesperson even explains the reasoning behind this practice.) :::So, therefore, is it possible that humanity's first Spectre, a well-known soldier that could be a recipient of the Star of Terra (22rd century Medal of Honor, practically) get a two-rank promotion upon his death? You're damn well right he could. Shepard is the exception, not the rule. It'd actually make sense to throw every combat and service commendation at him that you could find. I mean, imagine if Audie Murphy died right after the events at Holtzwihr (before he could be removed from the ETO). That's the kind of level of heroism we're talking about with Commander/Captain Shepard. --HaierPhilips 03:29, January 7, 2010 (UTC) ::But if you read those stories, particularly the second one, it is clear that this is not the norm. And while you may find it difficult to believe I haven't heard of it, I can tell you that this is the first I (a non-commissioned officer going on 7 years of service now) have heard of this supposedly "very common" practice, and it should go without saying that while I have known quite a few servicemen (and a couple servicewomen) killed in combat, not once have I seen this supposedly "very common" tradition carried out. Regardless, just because something is traditional now does not mean it's traditional in the Systems Alliance, where women serve as infantrymen, there are only a Navy and Marines, with no independent army, there is no draft (which is a tradition both in the United States, where the all-volunteer force is a historical anomaly, and most other nations), garrison forces are not intended to actually hold their ground in the face of an attack... need I go on? SpartHawg948 08:18, January 7, 2010 (UTC) ::*Just wanted to further add that I, too did a google search and turned up a fascinating Marine Corps document, actually a memo from the office of the Commandant of the Marine Corps which actually specifies the legal grounds, rules and requirements for posthumous promotions, which was sent out to clarify as questions were raised about the procedures in light of combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can also refer to the Army website section on the subject, both of which I would consider better sources on the matter than news agencies, which generally know a lot less about military matters than they think they do. The Commandant of the USMC and the US Army are much better resources on the matter than KTVZ Oregon, or the Army Times and MilitaryCity (a branch of the Military Times). Despite the misleading names, neither are actually associated with the military or DoD, but are owned by the Gannett Company, America's largest newspaper company. Basically, in order to be posthumously promoted, an individual has to have already been eligible for the promotion before they died, and it has to be approved from on high (and I mean very high, as in the President for officers and the Secretary of the branch in question for enlisted), and as such are not common. As the Commandant of the Marine Corps is clear to point out, servicemembers who did not meet the requirements for the promotion before their deaths are not able to be posthumously promoted, and even when someone is posthumously promoted, it's only ONE rank, not TWO, which was of course the so-called tradition that I was questioning. SpartHawg948 09:25, January 7, 2010 (UTC) :::"But if you read those stories, particularly the second one, it is clear that this is not the norm." :::Which matters not in the least, since no one claimed it was the 'norm.' It was claimed it was a tradition, and low-and-behold, it is indeed one that is practiced in the U.S. military. :::"And while you may find it difficult to believe I haven't heard of it, I can tell you that this is the first I (a non-commissioned officer going on 7 years of service now) have heard of this supposedly 'very common' practice, and it should go without saying that while I have known quite a few servicemen (and a couple servicewomen) killed in combat, not once have I seen this supposedly 'very common' tradition carried out." :::Again, I don't know how you haven't heard of it. Pat Tillman's case was extremely well known in the military and anyone following it would've known about it. There's been numerous cases of fine young men and women that have received this honor posthumously in the sandbox. It dates back many years - it is not new. :::"Regardless, just because something is traditional now does not mean it's traditional in the Systems Alliance" :::Now you're being disingenuous, considering you're the same individual that stated the SA was based on earth's military, especially the USMC. Considering your own words, I don't even need to refute this statement. As for your statement that it couldn't possibly be based on the same military... ridiculous doesn't even go far enough to describe it. There was a time, not too long ago at that, where the thought of black men serving in a frontline combat unit was absolutely preposterous. There was also a time where the thought of having the air force serve as its own branch was, also not long ago, laughable. For you to say that things aren't going to change in the military (DEAR GOD! WOMEN SERVING IN FRONTLINE UNITS?! THE HORROR!) in a century-and-a-half... I have some waterfront property in Arizona you might like. :::As for your dismissing of the Armytimes (Really now...) and claims that the entire practice doesn't suit the debate at hand because someone got the level of ranks mistaken... That's dodging the issue. And, again, something else I don't need to refute. --HaierPhilips 17:11, January 7, 2010 (UTC) ::*Sigh... talk about being disingenuous. Someone did claim it was the norm. I believe it was HaierPhilips, who said "It is a very common practice in the U.S. military". And again, I don't get why my having never heard of it troubles you. As I pointed out, it's not a common practice, and honestly, I didn't follow the Pat Tillman story at all after it broke. All I heard was, he died, then months later there was a big ruckus about how he died, then it turned out to be friendly fire. It wasn't "extremely well known" in the little corner of the Air Force I was in, and again, "anyone following it would've known about it"... I wasn't following it. At all. ::*And again, I would like to point out, the tradition I was disputing originally was a supposed tradition of bumping people up two ranks, not one, posthumously which I have seen no evidence of. And I was not being disingenuous in the least. I never stated that "it couldn't possibly be based on the same military", so please don't put words in my mouth. I was just pointing out that there are many traditions the military does have that the SA does not, so you can't base this supposition solely on the fact that it is traditional in current forces. I demonstrated that quite nicely with my examples, (women in the frontline infantry which, despite your grandstanding, I have no problems with whatsoever, an independent army, the draft, and garrison forces that actually garrison, all of which are absent in the SA). ::*As for dismissing the Army Times, I didn't dismiss it, I was just pointing out that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (in an official memo on the subject) and the United States Army might be better sources on the matter of military posthumous promotions than some tv station in Oregon and two news publications that, military-sounding names aside, are not affiliated in any way with the military or Department of Defense, and are no more reliable on the matter than USA Today or The Detroit Free Press, which are owned by the same company as the Military Times papers are. Finally, a historical note: the idea of black men in frontline combat units was not "absolutely preposterous" "not too long ago", black men have served in frontline combat units in the American Revolution, pretty long ago, the American Civil War, pretty long ago, and World War II, still fairly long ago. I think you meant to refer to the fact that they didn't fight in integrated frontline units, although even segregation in the military ended 62 years ago, still not what I'd call "not too long ago". As for "waterfront property in Arizona", I think you flubbed the phrase, as there is plenty of waterfront property in Arizona, around Lake Havasu, the Salt River, and many others (even I lived on waterfront property, at least during the monsoon season when the rivers actually have water in them). The phrase is "oceanfront property in Arizona" since Arizona is, of course, landlocked. And keep it. After being stationed there for 6 years, I have no desire to return to AZ. SpartHawg948 21:33, January 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::Can this enormous, and now long, long, long, long-off topic conversation be moved to email, please? It's now actively cluttering the Talk page. --Tullis 22:14, January 7, 2010 (UTC) :Works for me! I made all the points I meant to (and you have to admit, that "waterfront" property in Arizona bit was pretty funny!), but if HaierPhilips feels I missed anything or misrepresented anything of his or what-have-you, he is of course free to shoot me an email, or leave it on my talk page! (actually, the talk page is the preferred option, but whatev) SpartHawg948 22:19, January 7, 2010 (UTC) Still Commander Shepard? Ok so this may be irrelevant as he has been referred to in trailers as Commander, but considering *SPOILERS AHEAD* that he dies at the beginning of ME2 and was "asleep" for two years while being "discharged" if you want to call it that from the Systems Alliance, is he still a Commander? Or is he no longer a Commander due to him playing no role in the Alliance military/ joining what they consider to be a terrorist group? Default History *spoiler?* SPOILERS In the Quick-Start option for Mass Effect 2, apparently the Default Shepard's Pre-enlistment history states that his, "Earthborn" and "Sole Survivor". I was going to ask about that - the default Shepard. The default Shepard is a male soldier named John, even in all the official media - the launch trailer's "One very specific man," and he was completely modeled for the "leader" video - so why don't you guys refer to him as such? I understand the gender-equality thing, and that you can "also" play as a female, but it's pretty clear stylistically (and commercially) who they had in mind when they were designing the games; don't misconstrue this as challenging a well-entrenched home policy, I'm just curious. MarinesNeverDie 15:21, January 28, 2010 (UTC)